Eric Wong <email@example.com> writes: > Georgios Kontaxis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> > Georgios Kontaxis via GitGitGadget <email@example.com> wrote: >> >> Introduce an 'email-privacy' feature which redacts e-mail addresses >> >> from the generated HTML content >> > >> Eric Wong wrote: >> > A general reply to the topic: have you considered munging >> > addresses in a way that is still human readable, but obviously >> > obfuscated? >> ... >> > I also considered Unicode homographs which can look identical >> > to replacement characters, too; but rejected that idea since >> > it would cause grief for legitimate users who would not notice >> > the homograph when pasting into their mail client. > > As a data point, none of the homograph@ candidates I posted here > on Mar 29 have attracted any attempts on my mail server. That is an interesting observation. All homograph@ non-addresses, if a human corrected the funnies in their spelling, would have hit whoever handles @80x24.org mailboxes. I take it to mean that as a future direction, replacing <redacted> with the obfuscated-but-readable-by-humans homographs is a likely improvement that would help human users while still inconveniencing the crawlers. It may however need some provision to prevent casual end-users from cutting-and-pasting these homographs, as you said in your original mention of the homograph approach. But other than that, does the patch look reasonable? Thanks.